Skip to main content

tv   The Call  CNBC  December 16, 2009 11:00am-12:00pm EST

11:00 am
we've fallen back every single time so this is serious resistance here. we can stay over 1115, that's good news and sort of breaking out into a new range. you saw melissa put up that bigger than expected drawdown in crude inventories. also helping energy stocks that was big deal on monday that exxon mobil made for xto, 25% premium? that was a real shock to me. that's a lot of money for oil and natural gas producer using primarily invested in shell. so ever since then, these emp stocks, the deafons, kabt on thes and pioneer have been outperforming the overall market. how about citi gup? yes, we're expecting the secondary today expecting to raise 20.5 billion shares. below the closing price yesterday at 3.56, most people around 3.30, 3.35. there are banks out there that haven't repaid the t.a.r.p. the chairman of pnc says he's in
11:01 am
no hurry to repay it. they'll do it next year, but we don't have a timetable. that's true of the regional banks that are out there. >> amd which has had a great little run here recently. you can see it moving up here and the competitor intel being sued for anti-competitive conduct. let's go down to jim goldman and get more on that. amp has had a good run here. two-year high and they've got the intel agreement and now this news from the ftc. >> investors just have got to love what's happening with intel as it relates to the competitive landscape with amd. the federal trade commission, bob, has been investigating intel for over a year and i am told the two sides have been engaged that intel was confident would yield an agreement, instead, talks surprisingly broke down and former charges by the agency were filed this morning. ftc officials claimed that intel engaged in a systematic campaign to shut out rivals by cutting off their access to the
11:02 am
marketplace. ftc officials addressing these charges just moments ago. >> they have responded rather than by simply competing aggressively on the merits, but instead have responded with a course of conduct that has been exclusionary and detrimental to competition. >> for its part, intel, calls the charges, quote, miss guided and unwarranted and that the complaint is largely based on last-minute claims that the ftc has not fully investigated. intel claiming the company has behaved fairly and lawfully and intel claims that the rush to file this case will cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and isn't based on existing law, but designed to create new laws and regulations. another intel rival on the graphics front, nvidia released a statement this morning applauding the ftc's move. another potential winner in all of this could be qualcomm making
11:03 am
marketplace strides with its snap dragon microprocessor. intel just settled the sweeping case with rival advanced microdevices paying amd over $1 billion as part of that deal. the ftc says this trial could begin as early as next september. larry? >> thanks, jim. stick around. let's get more reaction to the ftc's surprising anti-competitive charges against intel. joins us now is hans moses and john harkrider, partner at veltrot and hark rider. >> that was impressive. >> i hope i knot all that right. let's me go to john harkrider, i don't understand exactly how it is that intel can force dell and hp and ibm to buy intel chips. i don't understand it. do they put a gun to their head? do they bribe them? do they send mobsters from brooklyn? how does this happen? >> i think the answer is number two. what they effectively do is they give them very steep discounts if the customer purchases a very
11:04 am
high percentage, 90%, 99%, maybe more of microprocessors for intel. if they go over the benchmark, effectively it's a bribe. >> you had me right up until the end. that sounds like clever business. a bribe? >> i'm not sure that it's a broib, but some can look at it that way. i think the important thing is that dell and hp want road map, the next generation processor that will be very desirable. that product could be on allocation, so they want to make sure they're at the front of the line to get the next chip that's three or six months into the future. so i think that's the real deal here. >> i don't understand what's illegal about what they did. do you understand it? >> he gives them a huge discount to buy a giant -- >> yeah? >> right. i was just going to say you're bringing up the absolute crux of this case which is what was legal and what was illegal, and what was creative business practices. >> right. >> intel has always argued that
11:05 am
the consumer which is what all these agencies are designed to protect or purportedly doing so with the consumer has enjoyed substantially lower prices. >> right. >> and substantially better innovation along the way. >> so -- that's the -- go ahead whoever wants to jump in. john, is that you? >> i think that's the crux of the issue and first of all, you just repeated intel's argument which is that antitrust laws are designed to protect competition and not competitors and the only once hurt is amd and nvidia. the ftc says there's a long line of body of case law which is that if you have a high share of the market, 80%, or 90% and you effectively engage in what is the ftc claims is below-cost pricing, almost a form of predatory pricing through exclusionary bundling. >> is it below cost, though? >> that's the question. >> so what? so what if it's below -- look, let me just -- i can't help myself. prices are falling.
11:06 am
>> right. >> all these high particulary prices have been falling for generations. >> that's right and the real question though -- >> that is good for businesses. >> sir -- >> that is good for the economy. why is -- big is not necessarily bad. >> okay. let him answer. >> the real question. let me just finish, the real question is whether prices would be lower and whether innovation would be greater if amd were able on. >> what's the answer? >> i don't see -- >> everybody, take a whack at it. >> i don't see con seerms necessarily complaining. what are we waiting for? prices to fall so low that dell and hp pay me to buy one of their computers. if you look at where prices have been over the last decade, that's the key and monopoly aren't illegal. arc buzing them is illegal. and if intel is inflating all their prices that's the key here. >> you see. >> i just want to point out here, and let me say quickly the ftc announced today that as part of the investigation whether
11:07 am
intel is guilty or not, there are no monetary damages associated with this particular case and that's something for shareholders to keep in mind. >> we just need to back up a step. we can talk hypothetically whether this is lawful or unlawful or whether it's good or bad, but the reality is that they have brought a complaint under section 5 of the ftc act and they've brought it before administrative law judges who are employed by the ftc and section 5 is much larger than section 2 of the sherman act. so they're using a very broad statute. that statute is being judged by people who are employed by the ftc and if intel loses they'll have to appeal. >> hans, please tell me about consumer coercion because proper antitrust law has got to include consumer coercion and i don't see it here. i just don't see it. >> i don't want see it. >> this is a philosophical issue, but it's a policy issue also, hans. >> right. i don't think the issue is consumers. consumers are getting fantastic value. netbooks is a huge category and might be negative for intel.
11:08 am
i think the real deal is not microprocess microprocessors. amd and intel have settled. it's curious that the ftc is doing this today, because of graphics. >> because of graphics. the big winner here is nvidia. the world is going more and more in the graphics centric view of computing and that's negative for intel and they can't play the game that they've been playing. >> we've got to go. >> jim, you can have the last word. >> i was going to quickly talk about coercion here and what intel has been doing for the consumer. it seems like amd and so many intel competitors are trying to use federal agencies and governments around the world as a strong arm of coercion to get more competitive and entrenched in the market. >> good point to end on, guys. >> i smell the rotten fish of industrial planning once again. i really do. i've got to say that i think jimmy just nailed it and none of this makes any sense. >> okay. all right. we're going to leave it there. sneak in a little opinion there at the end. up next, cpi eases fears of
11:09 am
inflation and housing starts show signs ref bound. we'll talk economic recovery and whether inflation or deflation can pose a threat. larry. >> world leaders are facing major protests in copenhagen. we will head there live for details how to turn carbon into cash. you're watching cnbc first in business worldwide. boss:hey, glad i caught you. i was on my way to present ideas about all the discounts we're offering. i've got some catchphrases that'll make these savings even more memorable. gecko: all right... gecko: good driver discounts. now that's the stuff...? boss: how 'bout this? gecko: ...they're the bee's knees? boss: or this? gecko: sir, how 'bout just "fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance." boss: ha, yeah, good luck with that catching on! anncr: geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. cartoons duringch hoops your big meeting,
11:10 am
and breaking news when it breaks. watch real tv whenever you want. you don't need to get a phone. you need a phone that gets you.
11:11 am
11:12 am
check out inflation and the price of gold. gold on the rise today big time up 16 bucks, 1.5% following the consumer price index. whatat gold telling us? well, let's discuss all of this. missy? >> all right. more economic data for the fed to digest as it concludes its two-day meeting on interest rates. consumer prices rising 0.4% in november in line with expectati expectations, this follows yesterday's greater than expected rise-in producer prices and housing starts increasing less than expected. permits up 6%. so as the fed concludes its two-day meeting on interest rates should they be concerned about inflation or not? steve rashuto is chief economist at chief economists usa and cnbc's steve liesman with us as well. guys, i'm going to send it around the horn. steve, i'll start with you, steve rashuto. what do you think? some shh they be worried about inflation, deflation, neither? >> deflation say greater risk on
11:13 am
the table for them. >> really? >> yeah. when you look at the service components of inflation over the past four years you've been seeing a very, very decided move down in the service component inflation. we are now at an annual rate of less than 0.7% and that's a long-term trend of where inflation is going. the dollar's affected the tradable goods prices at the tradable level and we've been seeing marked deceleration and given the excess capacity in the system that will be with us for quite some time, you have to worry whether we can move further. >> we're going around the horn. sherry what do you think? >> from a real estate perspective, melissa, the obvious threat is inflation. there are three things keeping the slope as slippery as they are. we have foreclosure rates and unemployment and inflation affecting mortgage interest rates and the different between mortgage interest rates and the other two issues is that mortgage interest rates will affect everyone. foreclosures only affect you if you're a part of that group and same thing with unemployment and interest rates will create a damp or the housing market and
11:14 am
serious issues for home sales. >> steve liesman take your first whack at it. i want to pick up what steve ricchiuto was talking about. &40% of the core is just housing. and it's going to be very difficult for anything that's going down, for example, in the commodity price to really drive the bottom line consumer price number. >> go ahead. here comes larry. here comes larry! >> it's not selected pricing rising or for that matter falling. inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. the fed is pumped up its balance sheet. i dare say, sherry, you win the nobel prize for economics because there are nascent inflation pressures and look, all items cpi, 3.4% at an annual rate for the past three months and 1.8% over the next 12 months. in other words, we're seeing the beginnings of the year on year turn up in the inflation rate,
11:15 am
and i want to ask you, should the fed keep its zero interest rate free-money policy for an extended period, sherry? that's going to be the big question at 2:15 p.m. today. >> extended period, i don't think so. today, yes, i do think so, but going into 2010 we're already starting to see absorption levels and larry, if you look at a 30-year perspective in particular on new home start which is came out today, but any of the real estate indicators, we are just now reaching the bottom of the valleys from the prior cycles, meaning that we're really getting into territory we've been in before. up until now this has been uncharted territories for home bellers, for consumers, for banks. >> if i'm not mistaken that means continued declines on what they call owner's equivalent rent. it will still be cheaper to go out and rent a house or an apartment so that that will continue to drive down the aggregate price level, to use larry's term. >> but you've got to look at this in the aggregate, the whole
11:16 am
index is rising on a 12-month change and a three-month change and steve, that's why i disagree with you. you can selectively pinpoint areas. >> you say i'm not being selective in my data, larry? >> you are being selective. >> i'm not. actually, i was aiming this at steve ricchueto. you've got to ask yourself how long will we even stay at 1% or 2% and will inflation drift up to 2% to 3% and with housing starts and yesterday industrial production and earlier, what? friday retail sales, the fed is operating an emergency policy, steve. i don't think we have an emergency anymore and that's my question to you. why are they in an emergency when the rest of the data don't show it? is the fed wrong, steve? is that possible? >> no, i think the answer is very, very simple. a lot of people are assuming we don't have an emergency situation anymore and i think people have wrongly jumped to that conclusion. we have a financial market that's done a little bit better
11:17 am
and we're on the back of enormous amount of monetary stimulus that was provided and that stimulus is beginning to wane off. by march the fed stops purchasing mortgage-backed securities and thises any back what the young lady was talking about because once the federal reserve stops buying securities. by the same token, what happens to regular interest rates may not be a reflection of what happens either because the government is spending money like mad and printing debt like mad and we'll have suppliers pushing up interest rates and not inflation. >> before we go, who has it right? "time" magazine has ben bernanke as man of the year. at the same time we're hearing the senate confirmation committee will put off its commission for another month. both sides there. who's got it right? >> kiss of death. >> steve liesman, who's got it right? man of the year or we can't decide if we'll keep this guy around and we'll put it off for another month. >> think it can be both, melissa. if you look at what the polling data showed about bernanke, half the country, of the people who
11:18 am
know of him, half approved and half disapproved and 53% don't know and the senate's reflecting ambivalence and "time" magazine is looking at the point of view that he did save the country. >> our president preemptively won the nobel peace prize so i don't see anything wrong with giving him the award either. >> the rasmussen poll, 20% favor his reconfirm asian, 40% are against his reconfirmation. >> like to get my two cents in here. we have a danger when we begin making people like chairmen of the federal reserve lock are rock stars like alan green span and putting him on the cover of "time" magazine, and trying to make them a household name is a big fundamental mistake. >> be sure to catch the fed's announcement today on "street signs" followed biannual-star lineup of analysts. we have bill gross, ken volpert
11:19 am
and that's at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> next up on "the call." we're headed to copenhagen with details over major protests breaking out over climate change and the chairman and ceo of sap will join us live to discuss it all. >> big banks or fat cats? the banks paying back t.a.r.p. are having it thrown right back in their faces. are they greedy or are they stable enough to repay the t.a.r.p. in today's "call of the wi wild." we'll be right back.
11:20 am
11:21 am
11:22 am
money equipmentmaker joined global posting a 5% rise in quarterly profit and added that order rates would improve in 2010 as customers increase the capital expend itch you are budgets. joy global trading lower on the thai. it's down 0.5% larry? vague and ambiguous belling to rescue the troubled negotiations. police used pepper spray to did i thain 230 people as protestors demanded tough action on climate change. cnbc's jeff cutmor is in copenhagen with the story. what's the latest on this uprising? >> hey, larry, it's become a familiar story, these
11:23 am
demonstrations where the discussion is going on as temperatures have been falling in copenhagen, tempers have been rising and as you say it is the demonstrators who are arguing for even tougher emissions reductions targets from the developed and the developing world. i have to tell you, very little progress in reality inside the center itself. the chinese, the americans, and just about everybody else still cannot agree on the core issues here. we're going to see hillary clinton roll up probably tomorrow and then president obama at the end of week. they're still saying there can be a meaningful operational agreement which will take us beyond this meeting into the rest of next year, but quite frankly, what that means in real detailed terms is still amiss at this point, but from a fairly rowdy copenhagen, larry, let me send it back to you. >> thanks very much, geoff. cnbc has its own carbon council, nine ceos from all over
11:24 am
the world tackling the hardest question of all, how to turn carbon into cash? joining us now from paris, we have cnbc carbon council member and sap ceo leo -- if i get this right, opoteca. thank you for joining us. let me just ask you off the top, turning carbon into cash, what does that mean? how do you go about it? >> well, good afternoon, and congratulations, you got my name right. >> thank you, sir. >> i happen to believe that the issue is not necessary, it turn it into cash and we'll come to that in a second. the real question is what are our choices. we have no choice today, but to focus this issue and address global sustainability in a global fashion. all of us together show it on a global scale.
11:25 am
the consequences of not doing so are obvious that i don't think we need to discuss this. now at the same time turning our focus into sustainable businesses will be a great opportunity for many businesses to reinvent themselves and to have a long lasting period of sustainable, profitable growth. let me give you a few examples. first of all, it makes common sense that if we were to use our energy in a more sustainable or more rationale fashion or raw materials in a more rational fashion our bottom line would be better. secondly, if we come up with new technologies and that's our business that can actually manage the environment in a way more sustainable fashion that is going create a new growth opportunity. third, if we really do a good job, we can actually create new brands and whole new behaviors in people. for example, walmart is driving a whole new behavior in
11:26 am
consumers and that is creating a business opportunity in itself. >> butley o leo -- >> does it surprise you the report that came ahead of you where the reporter said they can't agree on the core issues at this meeting? does that surprise you because on the one hand we have to work together to get it done, but that's not what we're hearing is happening. >> well, my hope is that the political leaders of this world will understand that only a global agreement among all of them were actually creating infrastructure and the regulatory framework that would enable all of us to do our job. if it doesn't happen in copenhagen, i think it would happen at the next opportunity. something has to happen and businesses need to speak with a very loud voice and tell our political leaders you guys have to do your job. >> okay. leo, we'll leave it there. it's a good thought. thanks for joining us today. we appreciate it. we'll squeeze in a quick break
11:27 am
and when we come back we have the director of the ftc coming on after the ruling of intel. richard finestein will be joining us right after the break. we'll be right back.
11:28 am
11:29 am
>> the ftc just wrapping up a press conference on their antitrust suit against intel.
11:30 am
joining us now we have richard finestein who is the ftc director of competition. thank you so much for join us today in explaining this case to us because from what we can understand from our experts who are following the case, they said that the basic charge is that intel gave customers a bulk discount. that sounds like good business and good for the consumers. what's wrong with that? >> well, our allegations -- our allegations are that there's a lot more going on here than just legitimate discounting. there's a difference between simply lowering one's price to attract more business on the one hand and in effect, penalizing one's customers for doing business with one's competitors on the other hand, and the allegations of this complaint described in our judgment, the latter scenario rather than the former. this is a lot more than just good old-fashioned price competition. >> how does that work, exactly? how do you penalize customers
11:31 am
for buying something from the other guy other than giving them your stuff really cheap? >> well, there are -- the penalties took a variety of forms and they're laid out in some detail in the complaint, but, for example, there's evidence and there are allegations that some of the oems, the original equipment manufacturers, perceived that if they did a substantial amount of business with intel's competitors they would be penalized financially for doing that and that took a number of forms and -- >> can you give us an example of one? i apologize, we're just triing to really understand this case. obviously we don't. what's an example of one way they're penalized. >> one example is marking assistance in -- in intel would provide to its customers
11:32 am
provided that they didn't deal at all with intel's competitors or did so on a very limited basis which had the effect of maintaining intel's monopoly. that's just one example. >> mr. feinstein, i don't understand a few things about this, but one is that the idea that intel can coerce these gigantic computermakers like hp and dell and ibm. these are not little companies. these are huge companies. if these companies decided that they didn't like intel's product and wanted to go elsewhere, then they would take actions and intel would suffer, but that doesn't seem to happen. so i want to ask you, are you saying that just big is bad? that because intel is big that's necessarily bad because i don't understand the basis of the case other than that. >> no. we're certainly not saying that big itself is bad. when big is combined withec
11:33 am
collusi exclusionary conduct that keeps whatever actual competition there may be to very low levels, therefore, allowing big to stay big and avoid competition on the merit, that's the problem. >> but, sir, if a gigantic computer company -- let me take hp which i believe is the world's leader now, certainly the u.s. leader. if they see that nvidia or amd or somebody's got better product, they have a better brain system created on these mini chips, they're going to use them. how the heck does intel prevent them? as i said in the earlier segment, somewhat in jest and somewhat nah truth, other than hiring mobsters in from brooklyn to put a gun to the heads of hp, they can sell based on efficiency and price. i don't understand how intel runs this program. >> well, they sell a wide variety of products and they have varying degrees of control over those products, and i will -- and i can assure you
11:34 am
that their customers, even though they are substantial companies in their own right were concerned about what they were confronting from intel and that evidence will be presented by us during the trial. >> jim goldman, go ahead. >> mr. feinstein, jim goldman here. we just spoke to someone regarding that the charges are misguided. in fact that these new charges are based on last-minute allegations this are that have not been fully investigated by the ftc and further that they're involving various other charges that have not been discussed with this company. how do you respond to this and also what went wrong with the settlement discussions? >> i'm not going to get into the details of the settlement discussion, but i do disagree with that characterization of the allegations here. intel was fully aware of what the ftc's concerns were and has
11:35 am
been for a long time. there are certainly some aspects of the evidence that were developed and more recently than other aspects of the evidence and some of them are unfolding in real time, but what we see is a pattern of stifling competition in its insipiency and that's what we're trying to address, but i strongly dispute -- i strongly dispute the suggestion that intel was in the dark about the ftc's concerns. >> mr. feinstein -- >> go ahead, jim. >> i'm just going to ask very quickly, mr. feinstein, did intel's settlement with microdevices embolden the ftc to move forward in its case against intel or was that maybe cause for increased settlement talks. can you characterize that for us? >> well, i would -- obviously, that was part of the landscape the fact that they settle theired case with amd and it
11:36 am
should be obvious that we brought a case of our own that to the extent that they were resolved by intel by means of that settlement wasn't viewed as sufficient to address the larger competitive concerns. >> mr. finestein, i appreciate your time sir, one last question. anticompetitive tactics by intel were designed to put the brakes on superior competitive products. do you have a specific superior competitive product in mind that could illuminate us on this? >> i think you will see in the complaint, and i would point you to the precise paragraph if i had it in my hand, but i don't at the moment, but i think there are some specific allegations about developments of certain chips by amd which were perceived to be superior and which intel was very concerned
11:37 am
about and those were referenced specifically in the complaint as examples of the general allegation that you just pointed out. >> mr. feinstein, we appreciate your time. thank you for helping us out. >> coming up on "the call" are the banks that receive tafrp money healthy or are they just greedy? that is our "call of the wild" coming up. then boeing with the 787 dreamliner what's next for the world's largest aircraft maker. that's next right here only on "the call." we'll be right back. i'm bob pisani with this week's "etf 101." etfs are praised for being more tax efficient than mutual funds. mutual fund managers have to sell off holdings to pay off redeeming shareholders, in turn, the gains are passed on to shareholders. it often minh fiezes the
11:38 am
magnified distributions. some etfs like leveraged and inverse etfs may be prone to larger payments. the problem with the capital gains distributions is this, when you have only etf for one day or one year all of the shareholders receive a same per-share payment and keep in mind the etf share price falls upon the cash payout. you're responsible for paying taxes on these distributions in the year that you receive it. the tax rate isn't dependent on how long you've owned the share, it's dependent on how long the fund held the position. you'll have to sell your position before the payment is made. complicated, i know. that's this week's etf 101.
11:39 am
11:40 am
11:41 am
>> wells fargo becoming the latest bank to pay back the government saying it would repay its $25 billion tax barrel lifeline as soon as it raises 10.4 billion by selling shares. in total, banks will have repaid 161 of the $245 billion in t.a.r.p. mono pep that's a big
11:42 am
change. are the banks healthy or are they repaying the government to get out of their restrictions especially pay restrictions? that's today's "call of the wild." weighing in is chris whalen, senior vp at institution risk analytics and steve bartlett, chairman and ceo of the financial services roundtable. hello, gentlemen. chris, go to you. can the banks survive this especially citi which i think is the one everybody's focused on. >> happy holidays, larry. look, the fed is manipulated the market so much that large bank stocks are attractive, but i would point out that to equate investment authority sold their citi stake and as the ftc reported last week they're thinking of changing their banking relationship for oil revenues. i am concerned that the really conservative investors outside the u.s. in the middle east and particularly in asia would rather than the government was involved with some of these banks through next year because as you know, banks move very slowly and they are still not
11:43 am
showing us even the losses they are realizing right now in their current financial statements. we won't see that until next year. >> steve, do you guy with that? >> oh, no. i'm just glad to be on the show on a good news day. i don't always get this opportunity. >> this is good news for the customers and the shareholders, for the employees and for the government. private capital was always the goal. that's the norm and that's the way it should be so we're returning it to private capital. actually, about four years before anyone had expected so aier ago it was set up as a five-year program and about half was already on. >> what about the fed? >> the fed's not putting capital. the fed is putting liquidity. >> no, but the fed has bucked $2 trillion worth of mortgage-backed securities and treasurys. they haven't sterilized that operation, by the way, larry. >> i agree with you. i think the fed bails them out on a daily basis. i want to get both of you in this. big story, "the washington post" today that citigroup in particular and banks in general
11:44 am
have gotten a huge tax break that, in fact, the repurchase of the stock and the sale and getting out from under the preferred stock is not an ownership change and therefore they can take all of the tax laws carried forward. it's worth $38 billion. a lot of people say this is just blatant government giveaway to citi. i want to get your take on this, chris. >> well, look, the tax issue, i think you could argue about was there a change in control? yes there was. so the government has essentially given the banks a poohs this so that we don't have to write down these assets. the bigger problem i have, larry is all of what we've seen in the last few weeks, this run to repay t.a.r.p. really illustrates that the business roundtable and the bankers are running approximately see in washington. there is no push lick policy component in this conversation at all. >> but that's what -- i wish we were having more influence on public approximately see than we are, but i appreciate the compliment, chris.
11:45 am
>> isn't that what we wanted the banks to do in the first place? we lent them this money, the concern was that the taxpayers weren't going to get it back and we're finding fault with that. >> no, no, no. we shouldn't want it back. the governments were interested in getting banks lending, they would say to the banks, take the -- >> the other com mraunt that they got this money and they weren't lending. if it wasn't working, give it back. >> they're take your worst loans, charge them off, write the capital off. you want to fix the bank. >> they are righting it. >> i think we have to go. >> steve bartlett, i know you're the wizard of oz and i know you're controlling bank policy in washington, d.c. and you were for many years when you were a house member, but i'm just a little troubled. taxpayers pay for this t.a.r.p. money. i'm glad they're de-t.a.r.p.ing, but the taxpayers are right, you are getting it back and? but i am concerned about a $38 billion tax break. this is unprecedented. the irs is doing the treasury's bidding, steve. it smells lousy.
11:46 am
>> we would like that tax break is what larry's saying. i would like my own tax break. >> thank you. that money should go back to taxpaye taxpayers. there's a change of ownership and the rules are the rules. >> larry, it wasn't a change of ownership. it was an abnormal thing to have the government there in the first place. >> so what? >> it wasn't the board of directors or that the government was managing the company. >> they are managing the company. >> read the t.a.r.p. agreement! >> let's just go back to the basics. >> they were acting like private equity owners. >> let me finish it up. when the company loses money they generate losses and then they can write those losses off against future profits. that's what we want. not against the change of ownership. >> we've got to go. >> you're a great american, but as a taxpayer i'm being gypped and hosed. >> as a taxpayer you got a 10% return on the deal. >> good point as well. thank you for joining us. >> gypped and hosed. >> for some, gambling is a full-time job.
11:47 am
the debate whether to legalize gambling continues to gain heat in washington and tonight i'm li looking at the high stakes and big money as cnbc investigates the big business of illegal gambli gambling. >> the professional gambler known as vegas runner says sports gambling is in his blood. gambling supports his family. he says it doesn't hurt anyone, yet the wages he makes with bookies are nonetheless, illegal. it's an argument that's gaining traction in washington, where some lawmakers say online betting should be brought out of the shadows. >> people gamble in this count rey no matter what the laws are whether it's legal or controlled. >> cnbc investigates the big business of illegal gambling. you know someone who does it. don't miss it tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern right here on cnbc, larry. >> i'm going to watch. "power lunch" is coming up at the top of the hour. sue herera, what have you got cooking. >> hi, larry, when we join you
11:48 am
at noon there's talk we might get an emissions cap out of the copenhagen summit. will tobacco a job killer for the american economy? we have a debate about that. as we go into the new year, where do money managers think the market is headed? first on cnbc, the result of russell's investment manage you are survey. plus you've seen the headlines for days and days. tiger wood, the kardashians, they're dominating the front and back pages everywhere you look. we'll explore who's making money from the trash talk economy. melissa, back to you. >> the kardashians on cnbc. i love it. thanks so much. >> carbon council. i'll explain it to you during the commercial who they are. a big sigh of relief out of boeing after a two-year wait. the company completing the first test flight of the dreamliner jet. phil lebeau next with what's coming up next for the company and its 787 jet. we'll be right back. #ñ#ñ#ñ#ññd
11:49 am
11:50 am
11:51 am
welcome back to "the call" with your daily realty check, i'm diana olick in washington. november housing starts came in in line with expectations, rising 8.9% with 574,000
11:52 am
annualized units. multifamily rising from it's all-time low. permits rose more than expected, up 6% with family juicing the bulk of the number. refis were the only action up just under 1% and the purchase index was down 0.1%. this as the 30 nf year picked increased to. %. residential design services fell again in november. the architectural billings index, a forward-looking construct indicate had been rising for several months. check in next at 2:50, until then go to realtycheck.cnbc.com. diana olick, thanks so much. a big sigh of relief from boeing executives as the dreamliner completed its successful debut flight this after a delay of two years. boeing is trading lower on the day, down 2%. phil lebeau joins us live from seattle from comments from boeing executives. >> melissa, by all accounts,
11:53 am
boeing's 787 dreamliner was a success. it was a couple of hours shorter than expected but when it took off yesterday there was a very narrow window when they would be able to get the flight in yesterday, well, they got it in. it took off, it went up about three hours and they did half of the test that they wanted to complete. now it's on to the test phase and according to the ceo, jim mcnerney, there is a sigh of relief at the headquarters that the dreamliner has finally flown. >> think it's more a sense of accomplish am,, but yes, we've had trouble on this program and to finally get it done, it's the people here and the families that support them that finally got this thing done. innovation is often like this, we don't like it to be this way and we didn't plan on it being this way, but it was this way in this case, but now we can look forward to a -- an airplane that will be like airplanes are made
11:54 am
for the next 100 years and people out here are proud of that. >> reporter: so after wrapping up a three-hour first flight, what's next for the dreamliner? there are six dream liners that will test the phase. by all accounts most people i've talked with within boeing&, they believe boeing will be able to stay onned it line and will be able to make the first delivery by the end of next year. the test pilots yesterday indicated that the plane performed as expected. >> five minutes after we were airborne we'd retired more risk if you want to talk about it in engineering terms, we figured out more things about the airplane in the first ten minutes of flying it than the last 100 days. >> there were no surprises and no major issues with the airplane which considering the complexity, that's a huge statement on the quality of the build and the design. >> take a look at shares of boeing as melissa indicated,
11:55 am
shares are down a little bit today, but over the last year, boy, if you put money into boeing shares a year ago, melissa and larry, you'd get a 30% return. not bad this year. you've got to take that in a area when they've had problems with the plane, the shares have still rebounded. >> it certainly looks like a very cool plane. thanks so much, phil lebeau. that's it for "the call." i'm melissa francis. >> i'm larry kudlow, see you tonight on "the kudlow report."
11:56 am
11:57 am
11:58 am
good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to "power lurch." i'm tyler math son. tamed inflation data and housing starts as the fed's big decision on brace. hu big will it be in we'll find out in a minute. it comes at 2:15. 37 s&p 500 companies hitting fresh 52-week highs today. google is one of them and it is dancing around the 600 buck level. >> wow! i'm sue herera. copenhagen cops using tear gas to break up protests at the climate change summit, but will
11:59 am
a deal there end up being a job killer here at home. that is our power grid debate. >> i'm michelle caruso-cabrera, americans send out $110 billion text messages and that's a b. doesn't anybody want to talk to anybody else anymore, dennis? >> good question. i'm dennis kneale. tiger wood, the kardashian sister, jon & kate plus 8, there's juicy gossip out there. how good is the trash talk economy in who's raking in the profits? we'll look at that time. >> the dollar showing weakness and stocks showing gains. let's check in now on the market action. bob pisani checks it out for us at the new york stock exchange. >> the fed statement today will be the most significant statement and it will set the tone. good news, we're essentially at new highs at all of the major indices. the s&p 500 sitting at 1114 or so and there's the three-month chart. see the sawtooth pattern? we had trouble getting over that and at

166 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on